IC Engine Automobile : 15% fuel-to-wheel efficiency

Today’s efficiency situation:
FUEL 100%
PUSHING THE PISTONS 35%
OVERCOMING ENGINE FRICTION AND PUMPING THE AIR AND FUEL
(typical US driving condition) 20%
Are we stuck with ~20% auto engine efficiency?
What can be done?

Run the engine fuel-lean, that is, use excess air. It is well known that fuel-lean running improves the efficiency. In the old days, under cruising conditions, the engines always ran lean – about 15% excess air — this was economical. So what happen to change this? The problem is the three-way (CO, UHC, NOx) catalyst used on engine exhausts. This only works if the engine air/fuel ratio (by mass) is stoichiometric (chemically correct). For gasoline this ratio is 14.6:1. The engine computer, acting in concert with the engine air flow sensor, electronic fuel injectors, and exhaust oxygen sensor, maintains the stoichiometric ratio for most of your driving. Only at this ratio can the catalyst both oxidize the CO and UHC (to CO2 and H2O) and chemically reduce the NOx (to N2). (UHC = unburned hydrocarbons.) What humankind needs is a lean-NOx catalyst. Then we could have increased efficiency and continue to be clean!

Also needed are ways to improve lean flammability in gasoline engines. That is, the ability to burn real lean is limited by the fuel. If the gasoline-air mixture is too lean, the flame will not have enough speed to get across the cylinder in the time permitted by the engine RPM the driver wants, or the flame will not even start – the cylinder misfires, and then the catalyst has to oxidize a huge amount of UHC and thus may overheat (which might mean you have to buy a new catalyst).

Background:
A first course on thermodynamics may teach the efficiency of the Otto cycle (which is the ideal cycle used to simulate the gasoline spark ignition auto engine). Such a course would derive the following equation for the Otto cycle efficiency:
h = 1 – 1/rvg-1
The compression ratio of the engine is rv. Actually, this is a volume ratio. It is the ratio of the volume in a cylinder when the piston is at the bottom of the cylinder to the volume in the cylinder when the piston is at its top position: rv = Vbottom/Vtop.

Most auto engines have compression ratios in the 9 to 10.5 range. We note: the higher the compression ratio, the higher the efficiency! The g parameter is the ratio of the specific heats, ie, the constant pressure specific heat over the constant volume specific heat. In practical terms, the higher the g, the higher the efficiency. A gas such as helium or argon, composed only of atoms, has the highest g possible, 1.67. Room air on the other hand, being mainly composed of O2 and N2 molecules has a g of 1.4. Fuel vapor has g less than that of air. The mixture of air and gasoline vapor inducted into the engine has a g of about 1.35. As this mixture is compressed and heated during the compression stroke, its g drops to about 1.33. Upon combustion (when the piston is near its top position), the fuel is oxidized to CO2 (and some CO) and H2O, and g drops further. It drops into the 1.20-1.25 range. The overall, effective g for the whole cycle for use in the efficiency equation above is about 1.27.

The rule of thumb is: the greater the complexity of the molecules, the lower the g. The lower limit is 1. Argon and helium atoms only translate, that is, they move along straight paths until they encounter another atom. Room air molecules translate and rotate (about 2 of their axes). Hot air starts to vibrate (as two nuclei connected by a spring). Molecules of fuel vapor have a lot of opportunity to vibrate, even at room temperature. The products of combustion vibrate. However, only the translation of the molecules PUSHES the piston. The other modes of molecular motion do nothing for pushing the piston. Thus, as g drops (indicating more vibration of the molecules), h drops. A lean engine (ie, an engine with excess air) has a cooler combustion process and more air relative to fuel than the typical engine with a chemically correct mixture. Thus, its g is higher, and its h is greater.

Plug g = 1.27 into the efficiency equation above, assume rv = 10, and you get h = 0.46. Multiply this by about 0.75 to account for real cycle effects (such as the time it takes to burn, heat losses to the coolant, and exhaust valves that open before the piston fully reaches bottom position) and you have h = 0.35. This is the efficiency (given above) of using the chemical energy of the fuel to push the pistons. Multiply this by the mechanical efficiency of the engine, which accounts for the mechanical friction in the engine and for the air (and fuel) pumping work that has to be done, and you have the final, or overall efficiency of the engine. Of course the mechanical efficiency varies with driving conditions. The higher the RPM of the engine, the greater the friction loss. The more closed the throttle (ie, the farther your foot is off the pedal), the higher the pumping loss. For typical US driving, the resultant overall efficiency of the engine is about 20%. Note, your pedal is not really a gas pedal, it is an air pedal! Add the tranny and real axle mechanical friction losses (or the transaxle friction losses), loss due to convert reciprocal movement of piston to rotary motion for the wheel and the drain of a few essential accessories, and you arrive at a 15% fuel-to-wheel efficiency for the typical auto driven in the US.

Higher compression ratio. Here, we are limited by autoignition of the gasoline – knock. That is, if the gasoline engine compression is above about 10.5, unless the octane number of the fuel is high, knocking combustion occurs. This is annoying and if persistent, damage to the engine can occur. Thus, gasoline engines are limited in their efficiency by the inability of the fuel to smoothly burn in high compression ratio engines.
However, the diesel engine is not subject to this limitation. It runs at high compression ratio. In part, this explains its high efficiency. It also runs lean, and its pumping work is low, further increasing its efficiency over the gasoline engine. Humankind needs quiet, smoke-free, odor-free diesels! Apart from comression ratio Diesel engine also have all the other inefficiencies as petrol engine, like friction loss, reciprocal to rotary conversion loss etc. Also it is more polluting than petrol engine.

We need new cycles put into practical use. An example is the Atkinson cycle. This has a smaller compression ratio than expansion ratio. This means TC is reduced since the burnt gas cool as they expand, making the cycle efficient. We throw away less waste heat via the exhaust.

Run the engine at optimum conditions, meaning low friction (modest engine speed) and low pumping work (air throttle more open). Try to approach the “pushing-the-pistons” efficiency of 35%. This already is happening in some stationary piston engines – large, slow, piston engines used at pipeline compressor stations, for example. Also, this is an important characteristic of the engines used in the hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles. Let the gasoline engine in the hybrid gasoline-electric power plant only run with good throttle opening and modest RPM.
Note the hybrid power plant also recovers some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle, by letting this KE drive an electrical generator (during braking). The electrical energy is stored in the batteries. (Normally, this KE is dissipated as heat in the brakes.) An inverter is used to convert DC electricity from the batteries to AC electricity needed by the electric motor and created by the generator.

The table below compares the “well-to-wheel” efficiencies of several auto power plants. “Fuel Prod” means the energy efficiency of extracting, refining, and transporting the fuel. “Eng” means the “fuel-to-wheel”efficiency of the vehicle. “Gas” means gasoline engine. “FC-HC” means a PEM fuel cell with a gasoline-to-hydrogen reformer on board. (PEM = proton exchange membrane fuel cell, the fuel cell type that has been getting most of the attention for auto and home use.) “FC-MeOH” means a PEM fuel cell with methanol-to-hydrogen reformer on board. (The methanol is produced at a refinery by steam reforming natural gas – thus it is a “fossil fuel”.) “Ems” means emissions (CO, UHC, NOx) impact. The ratings are “low” (where we are now for autos), “ultra low”, and super low”.

from http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm

From reading this you may get the following:
1. When we buy 1 litter petrol/Diesel, its 80-85% is burned for nothing.
2. By keeping the power plant with us while traveling we are polluting from the beginning to end of your trip.
3. Too complex actions are happening in the IC Engine. And equipments are complex like carburetor, fuel pump, cylinder, piston, oil ring, crank, clutch, gearbox, differential gear etc.
4. The heat and vibration coming from the engine is affecting the driver psychologically. (typical Indian condition)
5. Noise and air pollution to pedestrians and cyclist.

Do we have any other way of transportation?

There is a device which is discovered 200 years back. Its electric motor. Its efficiency is more than 85%. The vehicles which is run by electric motor has 3 main parts.
1. Electric motor, 2. Battery and 3. controller.
Apart from rotor of electric motor all parts are stationary. So it has less frictional loss, less noise and vibration. Since motor adjust torque automatically, no need of clutch and gear box. There is no power loss while the vehicle is stopped in traffic jam and signals. If we put regenerative breaking system, then we can re-capture 30% of power needed for breaking. It is used to recharge the battery.
It has very less running cost. Since there is less moving parts it has less maintenance cost. A lot of advantages are there for electric vehicles.

But still we are not using it. Why?

Its the politics of oil.

If we use electric vehicle oil use will reduce. Oil companies don’t like this. They are lobbying against any research and use of better technologies.

How much time we use car?
average person in U.S. and Western Europe uses car just for 8%.

Do we really own this big, heavy, costly equipment which sleeping 92% of its life, wasting 85% fuel just move one place to another?

I have one request to you:
Reduce use of vehicles. Try using public transportation systems. If possible use electric vehicle. Use taxi sharing. We in India call it share auto.

NB: To get Malayalam version, add ml to the begining of URL and refresh the browser.

About these ads

43 thoughts on “IC Engine Automobile : 15% fuel-to-wheel efficiency

  1. http://makewealthhistory.org/2009/04/17/electric-car-subsidies-a-good-idea/

    one thing that we forget is the efficiency of oil based engines and the direct pollution on the road.
    The actual efficiency of these engines are around 15%.That means 85% of the fuel is burnt for nothing. One reason is there, to make oil companies richer. We are idling our engines at traffic jams and signals. Idling cycle is the most inefficient cycle of IC engine. And finally we cannot beat Carnot.

    On the other hand electric vehicles are more efficient.Electric motors are above 85% efficient and better storage technologies are emerging. There is no direct pollution on the road. Regenerative breaking systems can gather 30% of the power wasted power from breaking/deceleration. No need of idling. Your EV does not use any power while stopped state.

    Its good if you can charge your EV from renewable source. even if you cannot do that then also using an EV is far better than oil based vehicles. Govts should promote EV usage. But number one priority should be better public transport systems.

    EV has the history of 100 years. Its the bad Oil companies are pushing the people to use oil based vehicles. Oil is the classic example about how corporates destroying the world. there are alternative technologies available. but they make these technologies to fail politically because they are brainwashing and giving bribe to every one.

    Its a shame to humanity that we are still using this inefficient engines. Future generations will curse us for this.

  2. http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=20870

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/5176216/Environmental-benefits-of-electric-cars-dismissed-as-fiction.html

    They still want to push the blood sucking oil. Killer of furure generation.

    See this, “Only 20% of UK electricity is generated by ‘clean’ methods such as nuclear power”. For them nuclear power is clean. Clealy indicating their knowledge about what is clean and dirty.

    When Diesel engine got 45% efficiency? The real efficiency is near to 15%. Also add all losses at traffic jam, signals, transporting oil to customer etc.

    If people dont want to use power from powerplant, they can use solar cells at their roof top. Is this option available with Oil based engine? Future will be of renewable power. So get ready for that technology. Throw away the Oil based vehicles.

  3. Hi! This is very interesting, I have been working on the same problem, namely to try and figure out the efficiency of the normal petrol engine. I have used the Maruti 800 as a model. Bore = 6.84 cms stroke = 7.2 cms. Volume of fuel per sec, using stoichiometric ratio of 14.7 : 1 = = 1.17 c.c/sec. Mass of 1.17cc of petrol = 0.824 gm/sec. Then using the manufacturers figure of 39.5 bhp @ 5500 rpm. 1.cc of petrol = 33000 J approx. Therefore 1.17 cc of petrol = 38610 J and 39.5 bhp = 39.5 x 745.7 J = 29455 J . Therefore efficiency = (29455/38610) x 100 = 76 % approx. This seems to be quite different from your figure of 15%.
    I am not arguing I am just wondering how this can be so. Again taking BTE (Brake thermal efficiency for the same vehicle we have:
    (39.5 x 632.5)/ (4.212 x 11000) x 100 = (24983.75/46332) x 100 = 54% approx. Brake thermal efficiency is the output divided by the calorific value of the fuel. Could you explain, where I am going wrong?

  4. I have some questions:
    1. Maruti 800 has an 800cc engine. Actually 796cc. So how you got 1.17 c.c/sec. Please explain.
    2. rpm also have importance. some area you using per second and per minute like in rpm. Will it have any effect in the calculation?

    I am not a mechanical engineer. But i read that 60% of total energy is lost as heat through radiator and exhaust. Other mechanical losses are there inside the vehicle.

    • You are right. 35% of the energy available in gasoline is lost to the engine’s cooling and lubrication system, another 35% is lost to the Exhaust gases, 5% is lost just to engine friction and finally another 10% is lost powertrain friction. -(Today’s Technician: Automotive Engine Performance. Copyright 2006) Information may have changed since this edition, but this is straight from the book. It does say, “From the total energy in the fuel, these average losses *may* occur:”

  5. Hi! I calculated my figureslike this using the stoichiometric ratio of 14.7 : 1. The stoichiometric ratio is calculated using the mass of the air/fuel not the volume. Wt. of air = 0.00125 gms/cc . Wt. of petrol = 0.72 gm/cc
    Then work out the volume of air in the cylinder and it is possible to find the amount of fuel needed for that amount of air. I also have doubts about the efficiency of the IC piston engine. Most books articles etc., seem to agree with your figure of about 15%. I just wanted to know how they arrive at that figure because theoretically the figures are quite different.

  6. 0.72 gm/cc is per cc. Are you considering the total 800cc?
    Also look for the meaning of BHP @ RPM. It have some relation to this.

    Our objective to move some weight one place to another. For that work required is Force X Distance. Thats the required work. Now for that how much fuel is burnt. Find its total energy content. Then calculate efficiency.

    I am also working on this to find a conclusion

  7. If you look at my first post you will find that that is exactly what I have done. However, power = velocity x distance so those have to be factored in to get a final answer. (I.e., velocity ofpiston) Nevertheless, it is a very interesting blog. However I do noptthink at present electric vehicles are the answer. An electric car weighing 1100Kgs. has a maximum onboard supply of about 7.2 KWh out of which only about 5.4KWh is available for use. It has a maximum range of about 300 Km and a maximum speed of 65Km/hr. So alot of work has to be done before electric cars become a reality.

  8. If electric is not answer then how even hybrid vehicle is giving more mileage than the IE engine based vehicle for same amount of fuel.

  9. Hi Jagdees!
    You are right the IC engine sucks but it still gives more power than any thing else that we have! I agree with you that hybrid cars might be the way to go! Basically to convert a Maruti 800 to pure electric you would have to take out the engine and install electric motors at, either all the wheels, or two front wheels andthen just put in a whole load of batteries. However, I must warn you, you might be disappointed with the performance. Maybe as Jagadees has suggested a hybrid would be preferable, using a system where the IC engine charges the batteries. Then the IC engine can be used on long journeys where it is most efficienct and the electric motors in city traffic.

  10. Will you be happy with a 96 km/hr in 3.9 sec and a 480km in one charge? There are full-electric vehicles give this power. http://www.teslamotors.com/. Of course its costly same as corresponding IE engine ones. http://jagadees.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/a-high-performance-ev/

    I not in the favour of hybrid. Its inefficient. You asked about the comparison between electric and IC engine vehicle efficiency. Since its calculations are confusing real life example of IC engine and hybrid can solve your confusion. With same load hybrid needs a small engine and less fuel. Now if we completely remove its engine fully powered by battery, then its efficiency will even increase.

    There are huge development happening in battery technology.
    Wait and see.

  11. Great article! however one thing I should point out is that your claim of electrical efficiency of 85+% is misleading as there will be further inefficiencies in generating that electricity. However, in saying that, it will be more efficient to run a large petrol powered generator and use that electricity for many cars because the large generator will be more efficient because many of the constraints encountered in cars are no longer an issue (power to weight ratio, cheapness of manufacturing …). or even better use wind, solar, ocean or geothermal methods to generate electricity.

  12. Thanks for the comment.

    The 85+% efficiency, was just about the electric motor. Not about vehicle or electricity generation. I know that the electricity reaching our home has efficiency of 35%. Then what about oil reaching our vehicle and all its pollution from rig to home? That system is working only because of the “externalizing cost”. You are not actually paying for the true cost of oil. That is a separate thing.

    Just compare IC engine and 3 phase electric motor. This motor does not need a device to change its torque. Its automatic. IC engine need a huge device, named gear box, to change torque. The list of loss is endless!

    Solar PV now has only 10% efficiency. But one advantage is that its input is free and no pollution. But future is for renewable energy. It can be produced distributed ways. Then why not switch to EVs now itself.

    • It is crazy that in just one year the efficiency of Solar PV has increased to 20-30%. Of course the higher efficiency ones are still in the testing phase.

  13. GOOD is saying that engineers are working on improving IC engines. What a shame. After 100 years of pollution and killing native people, now they are trying to improve. Shame on you people.
    Do not buy IC engine based vehicles. Dont by oil.
    Enough is enough.

  14. Great analysis Jagadees!
    I’ve been thinking about this general problem for quite a while as well, and recently I’ve been trying to see the larger picture, putting the automobile in this context. A friend of mine recently mentioned that it takes approximately as much energy to produce an auto as that auto consumes in fuel energy in its lifetime – quite something to ponder. So I began to look at a multi-faceted approach, from the perspective of resource flows, energy inputs, and energy outputs. One thing I noticed is the weight of autos here in the U.S. – typically 1725 Kg (3800 lbs.) for a small car – that’s like accelerating an elephant, let alone the ‘diet’ it takes to make one! Lightening the vehicles to half that weight would lessen the energy expenditures significantly on both ends of the equation.
    Battery vs. IC engine hybrids – one thing to consider is the materials batteries are made of, which today still leaves much to be desired. Perhaps the most promising is the lithium-iron battery, for which the lithium on earth is rare but concentrated in salt lakes like the ones in Chile – perhaps extracting the lithium salts can be done while maintaining the salt lake for wildlife (flamingos enjoy this sanctuary). Carbon nanotube ‘batteries’ may be coming to a point of application soon, so perhaps this material hurtle can be overcome to achieve the necessary power density.
    On the old IC engine, a few places are offering better designs (akin to the Atkins engine) such as Suderi’s split cycle engine, and one offer of an exhaust turbine DC generator to scavenge quite a bit of power from the hot combustion gasses (ThinGap Automotive), so advancing the IC engine’s efficiency while halving the energy required to move an auto might make IC engine – biofuel powered vehicles good enough to meet efficiency desires and environmental concerns. Achieving 4X the current vehicle efficiency, and changing layouts for driving needs, plus much more easily walkable or bike-able shopping areas would quite dramatically reduce vehicle demand in the first place, so combining all these factors would take us in a new direction (true, I read Good magazine as well). Perhaps in the long run electrics will prove to be the better choice, but I’m not counting out the internal combustion engine, at least as a long-distance backup power source in vehicles.
    But I live in the U.S., and as Winston Churchill remarked, “American’s always make the right decision, after they have tried everything else first.” So a few will always be at the forefront of what’s possible – fuel efficient engines and light, slipstream auto designs are not new here – Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion car (a big car!) achieved 30 MPG in 1932 using a standard Ford drivetrain of the time & low compression engine, and since then we’ve barely made any real progress, but what’s achievable is tremendous given the right incentives.
    Thanks again Jagadees for the general description of engine efficiency and drivetrain losses – may we all work to solve these problems with a firm understanding of the problems and paths to solutions.

    • Thanks Chuck for the comment.
      Remember The Great American streetcar scandal. First of all we dont need everyone driving a vehicle. Public transport is the most important solution.
      Regarding IC engines, we cannot break laws of thermodynamics. There is a max limit for efficiency of these heat engines. And loss of oil in traffic congestion. 3.9 billion gallons of fuel nationally in 2009 because of traffic congestion in US.
      For electric vehicles these issues are no there. Also can power from renewable sources. Regarding the battery a lot of research is going on. For railways we dont need battery.
      So I think spending time and money to improve IC engine is a waste. Better use all resource for better public transportation and EVs.

  15. Yes, I recall the great American streetcar scandal, GM’s effort to eliminate street cars in Los Angeles so the company could sell more cars – so there are no new scams, but certainly that highlights what some big companies try to do to maximize profits when there are no checks on their behavior.
    Public transportation I agree is a big part of the solution, very practical for most Americans living in or near urban centers. But unfortunately uninformed people sometimes elect officials that head us in the opposite direction, one important reason for reforming our campaign funding process..
    True, there are the thermodynamic laws, but there’s a long way from today’s engine efficiency of 25% max, to a theoretical maximum nearer to 63%, and if we combine the reductions in vehicle weight, gains in aerodynamic efficiency, and improvements in electrical component and drive train efficiency with a system designed mostly to be powered by batteries, a small engine for long-distance trips to augment batteries seems a reasonable thing to add to the auto, and with great efficiency, the amount of fuel consumed would be immensely less than what a typical auto consumes today, making biofuels practical. (Here I am thinking along the lines of an Aptera, or comparable automobile). http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/aptera-electric-car-smart-grid-460309
    Batteries may not visibly have fossil fuel issues, but the mining and refining of the metals does require substantial amounts of energy, and leaves much to be desired for many of the heavy metals used in batteries, plus the mining methods involve disturbing sulfide mineral bodies, and the track record of the mining industry regarding accidents where toxic materials are released is an issue (Lithium Ion cells & carbon nanotube capacitors being two notable exceptions). Perhaps the more common, benign elements on earth will free us from much of this dependence, with enough technological development.
    Railways may actually benefit from batteries or capacitors, since as a train decelerates, the energy currently is lost as heat – that could be banked and put back into the train as demand for acceleration occurs. And I often thought how it might be ideal to suspend solar panels well above the tracks, and run the power into an electric conduit above the train akin to electric street cars, perhaps with enough control and storage, the trains could operate primarily on the solar power provided along the route? Just ideas..
    But the IC engine probably won’t go away right away, so I think it’s worth the effort to both improve it dramatically, and lessen the demand put upon each engine. If it were simply reserved as a back-up type engine for long distance trips, or as a stationary engine for let’s say home biofuel combined heating and electric plants, it may find a useful niche until the time arises when we have sufficient better green batteries in quantities to completely replace it.
    Of course, getting Americans to walk or bicycle places instead of driving would probably do more than one good thing – it would keep them living longer and healthier! And another whole area is simply the gross inefficiency of U.S. planning and layouts for roads, shopping, work, etc. – it’s nothing short of complete ineptitude. I think Amory Lovins is quite right when he says the low hanging fruit is so easy to pick that it’s mushing up around our ankles :–). Thanks again for the great blog Jagadees!
    With Good Hope for the future,
    -Chuck.

  16. Thanks Chuck.

    All these are about transporting one person from one place to another. For that we need to look for the most efficient way. So why they asking us for owning a 1000 kg steel machine?

    They are promoting that idea to get profit a few people. American street car scandal is one of them. Before the propaganda they destroyed public transportation. Then pushed car culture. People on the road getting poison, getting killed, getting sick, increased carbon in the atmosphere changing the climate, drilling for oil destroying habitat, soldiers have to fight wars against innocent people, after all people have to pay huge amount of money to fill their tanks. This is unacceptable. So we have make them accountable in not only this, but also all economic/industrial activities. We should not allow any more this kind of manipulation for profit in future.

    Scandals never ends unless we the people organize. See the carbon trading scandal. Say for example if i came up with a 0.01% efficiency improvement plan for cars, some other polluter can by that carbon offset and get license to pollute. So whats the point in efficiency improvement.

    Personal cars are not at all a solution for transportation. Stop its development. In rich countries its beginning. But countries like India they are flooding with a hypnotic kind of advertisements.

    So enough is enough. Please do not white wash this industry. Please do not waste time and money

    Lets have better public transportation facilities. Taxies are also public transport. That gives a job opportunity for one person.

  17. Dear Sir:
    Let me give a brief self introduction.
    I am a machine tool design consultant, having executed more than 200 spms, to various customers all over the country–M/S Ennore Foundry, Sundaram Clayton, Elgi, Mahindra, Crompton, Gujarat Tractors, etc.

    *I have developed an accessory to any multi bore IC engines, which would reduce Fuel consumption by more than 10%, with a corresponding decrease in total emission. We are increasing the efficiency of kinematic link of the engine which tranforms linear motion of Piston to Rotary motion of Crank shaft.
    *Prototype unit has been built, incorporated into a standard Maruthy van. Onroad trials has been done, though for a short distance (10000km) as of now. Trials are in progress.
    *Results of the trials indicate an increase of fuel efficiency of more than 10%.
    At present van is running on Commercial LPG. Prior to modification, mileage average over last 200 cylinders(~80,000 km) has been 390 to 420 km per cyl.
    After modification, mileage average over last 12 cylinders(~6,000 km) has been 460 to 470 km per cyl.
    *Action for Patenting the system has been initiated. Hence, further technical details can not divulged.
    *If OEM can spare a free stand running engine along with couple of spare parts, we would do necessary changes/modifications at our cost & demo the results.

    I am exploring an avenue of “How to go about”.
    I await to hear your positive response.
    Regards.
    Nataraj
    May 05,11
    Cell: 09880396389
    e-mail: natarajavd@gmail.com

    —————————PROFILE————————-

    Machinery Cross Section
    _Automobile Industry
    Duplex Head Grinding Machine for Engine Blocks
    Pre-Boring Machine for Engine blocks and Gear Boxes
    CAM Milling Machine for Cars and Trucks
    CAM Milling Machine for Railway engines
    Facing and Center Drilling Machine for Crank Shafts, Axles etc
    Runner Riser Cut-off Machine for pistons and cylinder Heads
    _Electrical Motor Manufacturing Industry
    CNC Fine Boring Machine for Motor and Cover
    CNC Drilling Machine for D.C. Machines
    Facing Center Drilling and Tapping Machine for Motor Shafts
    _Miscellaneous
    CNC Compressor Screw Manufacturing Machine
    CNC Globoidal Cam Milling/Grinding Machine.
    Mandrel Extraction Machine for HV Fibre Glass Insulators
    High Production Needling Machine for Coir Mattress
    Achievements
    _FIE award for the BEST Machine Tools Design(Wire Cut CNC Electro Discharge Machine)
    _Client Profile
    M/s Sundaram Clayton Group, Madras
    M/s Ennore Foundaries Ltd, Madras
    M/s Engine Components Ltd, Madras
    M/s Kirloskar Electric Company, Bangalore
    M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd, Ahmednagar
    M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd, Bombay
    M/s Gujarat Tractors Corporation Ltd, Baroda
    M/s Sparr Equipments Ltd, Bangalore
    M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Igatpuri
    M/s Escorts Ltd, Bangalore
    M/s Tushaco Equipments, Bombay
    M/s DCM, Ropat
    M/s India Pistons Ltd, Madras
    M/s Elgi equipments.
    M/s Pragathy Automation.
    Vendors of Maruti Suzuki for engine blocks, cylinder heads and pistons

  18. i am B.E mech student thinking to make a project on increasing the efficiency of the I.C engine. any ways to reduce the power loss.

    • hai harish for every pblm sure dr s a solution………..if u r intrested in making d project contact 2 my mail id

  19. the ic engine will never be very efficient. in terms of the engine , increasing the top end temp will increase efficiency (efficiency =Th/(Th-TL) for a heat engine). in terms of losses, tires and aerodynamic drag are probably the major ones to try and improve

  20. My suggestion: Use bicycles.
    Most of the transport I do by bicycle. I live close enough to the office to cycle to the office and most other trips that I make are within the city, so I cycle. I live in Amsterdam and cycling is popular here, But you could cycle in any city (or area) that is relatively flat.
    Advantages of cycling:
    1. It is cheap (hey, after all I am Dutch)
    2. In the city is is faster than a car, especially during rush hour
    3. No pollution, hardly any CO2 production
    4. Very low use of fossil fuels (only for production)
    5. Cycling keeps you fit
    6. You need less space on the road and for parking
    Disadvantages:
    1. Safety could be an issue. In the Netherlands drivers are used to bicycles, but in many other countries they are not – we have to change that
    2. Not very suitable for distances over 15 km (10 miles), so make sure you get a home not too far from your office

  21. Improving IC Engine Efficiency
    Today’s efficiency situation:
    FUEL 100%
    PUSHING THE PISTONS 35%
    OVERCOMING ENGINE FRICTION AND PUMPING THE AIR AND FUEL
    (typical US driving condition) 20%
    Are we stuck with ~20% auto engine efficiency?
    What can be done?
    1. Run the engine fuel-lean, that is, use excess air. It is well known that fuel-lean running improves the efficiency. In the old days, under cruising conditions, the engines always ran lean – about 15% excess air — this was economical. So what happen to change this? The problem is the three-way (CO, UHC, NOx) catalyst used on engine exhausts. This only works if the engine air/fuel ratio (by mass) is stoichiometric (chemically correct). For gasoline this ratio is 14.6:1. The engine computer, acting in concert with the engine air flow sensor, electronic fuel injectors, and exhaust oxygen sensor, maintains the stoichiometric ratio for most of your driving. Only at this ratio can the catalyst both oxidize the CO and UHC (to CO2 and H2O) and chemically reduce the NOx (to N2). (UHC = unburned hydrocarbons.) What humankind needs is a lean-NOx catalyst. Then we could have increased efficiency and continue to be clean!
    Also needed are ways to improve lean flammability in gasoline engines. That is, the ability to burn real lean is limited by the fuel. If the gasoline-air mixture is too lean, the flame will not have enough speed to get across the cylinder in the time permitted by the engine RPM the driver wants, or the flame will not even start – the cylinder misfires, and then the catalyst has to oxidize a huge amount of UHC and thus may overheat (which might mean you have to buy a new catalyst).

  22. DIY electric motorcycles can be built from dead electric forklifts (usually the batteries)- 24v to 96v motors (see instructables.com). fuel cost is about a penny a mile versus 8 to 20 for fossil fuel.

    Your house is a big user too-even if electric it still takes from the grid. add a greenhouse and when you need heat use a fan to move hot air around. with the right ductwork in the crawlspace you can get cool air this way too. it is only the cost of moving the ‘heat’ around, not the cost of ‘heating’ (or cooling). University of nebraska passive solar

  23. What’s up everyone, it’s my first pay a visit at this site,
    and paragraph is in fact fruitful designed for me, keep up posting such posts.

  24. I don’t create a great deal of responses, but i did some searching and wound up here IC Engine Automobile : 15% fuel-to-wheel efficiency |. And I actually do have a couple of questions for you if you usually do not mind. Is it only me or does it give the impression like a few of these comments come across like they are left by brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are writing at additional online social sites, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Could you make a list of every one of all your public pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

  25. I am no longer positive the place you’re getting your info, however great topic.
    I needs to spend some time learning more or working out more.
    Thank you for wonderful information I was looking for this info for my
    mission.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s